CA Bill Would Limit Lethal Force Rights Of Home, Self Defense

CALIFORNIA — A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would narrow the legal justifications for homicide, eliminating its use in defense of property and imposing new limits on self-defense claims.

The bill requires citizens to avoid using deadly force whenever possible and clarifies when homicide is not justifiable in court, such as when a person uses excessive force in self-defense.

"This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation," Monisha Henley, senior vice president for government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety wrote in a statement. "White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives."

However, AB-1333, introduced by Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-Santa Monica), has already received backlash from gun advocacy groups and multiple law enforcement officials, including gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco, who say the law would eliminate the right of self-defense.

“Sacramento Democrats have spent the last 15 years tying the hands of law enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in their attempt to make criminals the real victims,” Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff, wrote in a statement. “Now, they’re actively trying to tie the hands of our residents, who have had to defend themselves against re-released career criminals far too often.”

Tehama Sheriff Dave Kain has also spoken out about the legislation.

"We are swinging so far outside the realm of what is reasonable by telling people now that under certain circumstances they can't protect themselves and their own home against a criminal element. It's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of," Kain told reporters.

The recent criticism prompted Zbur to defend the bill, which he says will be amended to ensure its intent is clear.

"AB 1333 was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home. The goal is to prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence [and] claiming self defense after the fact. We will amend the bill to make this crystal clear," Zbur wrote on X last week.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after fatally shooting two people and wounding another during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020, responded to Zbur's post: "I look forward to testifying against this bill. I’ll see you in California."

In 2020, during a downtown Los Angeles protest following the death of George Floyd, an armed man was arrested on suspicion of impersonating a National Guard member near Los Angeles City Hall. According to authorities, Gregory Wong was carrying a sidearm and assault rifle when he was confronted by real Guardsmen, who noticed his uniform was suspicious.

Under current California law, the Castle Doctrine (Penal Code § 198.5) allows residents to use force — including deadly force — against an intruder who forcibly enters their home, presuming they have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. This protection does not extend to conflicts involving household or family members.

Advocates say Zbur's bill would not change the Castle Doctrine. However, the bill seeks to amend when California justifies homicide such as when it is committed in defense of "habitation, property, or person."

Outside the home, California does not require citizens to retreat before using force in self-defense, as long as they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Zbur's bill would modify California’s self-defense laws by requiring individuals outside their residence to retreat if they can do so with complete safety before using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. It would also clarify that excessive force is not justified in self-defense situations.

What's more, the bill restricts self-defense claims for those who initiate a confrontation or participate in mutual combat. A person could only claim self-defense if they made a good faith effort to withdraw from the encounter.

Following discourse over the proposal, Moms Demand Action also released a statement in support of Zbur's bill:

"In recent days, there has been widespread misinformation shared across platforms in an effort by right-wing extremists to mischaracterize AB 1333 as a 'left-leaning criminal justice policy' that 'strips Californians away from the right to self-defense.' That is not true. AB 1333 is an anti-Stand Your Ground measure that does not impact the 'Castle Doctrine' and promotes safe de-escalation when possible in conflicts outside the home."

According to Moms Demand Action, 10 other states have similar laws in place.

"AB 1333 seeks to make clear that you cannot shoot and kill someone if you have a safer way of exiting the situation when you’re outside your home," the organization said.

In a situation like rape or a shooting, Moms Demand Action says the proposed law would still be able to use deadly force: "If someone is in a violent situation, California’s self-defense law would still protect them if they use necessary force," the organization said.

Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the organization, called the bill "crucial" to saving lives.

“Our self defense laws should protect people responding to the imminent risk of harm to themselves or others, not those who are willingly putting themselves and others in danger," Whetstone said. "From a road rage incident to a conversation gone wrong, we have witnessed far-too-many senseless acts of gun violence across California and the country and we thank Assemblymember Zbur for stepping up to tackle this issue head on.”